midpage

Martin v. StateMartin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida
Aug 9, 1977
No. 76-2146
Reporters:
,
Before:
Letts

Lead Opinion

LETTS, Judge.

We are compelled to reverse the trial judge’s order denying ‍‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍the defendant’s Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion, without a hearing, upon the authority of Barfield v. State, 348 So.2d 621, Opinion filed July 8, 1977 (Fla. 4th DCA). It ‍‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍would appear that Bar-field mandates an evidentiary hearing “. . . unless the motion or record conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief.”

Reversed and remanded for an ‍‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍evidentia-ry hearing on the appellant’s motion.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs. DOWNEY, J., dissents, with opinion.





Dissenting Opinion

DOWNEY,

Judge, dissenting:

My study of the record in this case compels me ‍‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍to dissent for the reason that the allegations of fact contained in appellant’s motion for post conviction relief do not rise to the ‍‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍level requiring an evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, I would affirm the order appealed from.

Case Details

Case Name: Martin v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Aug 9, 1977
Citations: 349 So. 2d 226; 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16099; No. 76-2146
Docket Number: No. 76-2146
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
Log In